On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Robert Schroll wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Thanks for the many replies, all. It's a bit overwhelming, and I fear I may
> have missed something. I'm going to try to summarize; please correct my
> mistakes:
>
> 1) There's no way to do what I want to do right now.
> 2) The
Thank you, thank you, thank you! This is exactly the explanation I've
been searching for, and I've felt stupid not being able to find it.
Basically, the answer is to wait -- we're not seeing the full picture
yet.
A few more questions while we're waiting:
1) When we get to the point where ap
On 10/25/2013 12:03 PM, Robert Schroll wrote:
...
>
> I'd prefer arbitrary locations, to allow the user to choose where to save
> their
> files and to allow for run-time localization. But if we restrict it to a give
> sub-directory at compile time, that wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Alberto Mardegan
wrote:
> On 10/24/2013 10:36 PM, Rick Spencer wrote:
>> So I am saying the opposite. Rather than allowing apps to create
>> background services I think we should stick to the original vision. Apps
>> use well known APIs for their functionality, or
>
> >Having only a set of default services would be very limiting.
> >Even if a "music background service" could take streams to support
> metronome-like apps, how about Spotify or Grooveshark?
> >They both have a lot of security built in and you can't just take a
> stream and start playing, you ha
Hi all,
Thanks for the many replies, all. It's a bit overwhelming, and I fear
I may have missed something. I'm going to try to summarize; please
correct my mistakes:
1) There's no way to do what I want to do right now.
2) The content hub may provide the capabilities I want in the future,
b
It turns out that deleting the app doesn't actually delete it -- it
just hides it from you. It still exists, and this is what's blocking
you from creating a new app with the same name. Somebody with admin
power can go in and undelete the existing app, letting you submit a new
version. You ma
On 10/25/2013 09:19 AM, Martin Fasani wrote:
> Hello dear Ubuntu list,
>
> *1* I wanted to ask first if anyone come up with a working alarm ?
> The one that is in this release doesn't let me save. Tried to search
> for an alarm app and didn't found any.
There are a couple of fixes landing in the n
2013/10/25 Dmitrijs Ledkovs
> On 25 October 2013 15:35, François Leblanc wrote:
> > Hy,
> >
> > Before switching to ubuntu 13.10 I get up to 1 new version by day, since
> ...
> > nothing
> >
> > I don't have new release of scripts or they are no new release?
> >
>
> https://lists.launchpad.net/u
On Friday 25 October 2013 09:02:09 Jamie Strandboge wrote:
> On 10/25/2013 07:20 AM, Michael Zanetti wrote:
> > On Friday 25 October 2013 08:13:20 Marc Deslauriers wrote:
> >> On 13-10-25 06:43 AM, Michael Zanetti wrote:
> >>
> >>
> In short, your use case falls into the category of 'backup
On 25 October 2013 15:35, François Leblanc wrote:
> Hy,
>
> Before switching to ubuntu 13.10 I get up to 1 new version by day, since ...
> nothing
>
> I don't have new release of scripts or they are no new release?
>
https://lists.launchpad.net/ubuntu-phone/msg04111.html
Since 13.10 got released
If this isn't the proper place, I would appreciate it if you could direct me
to the correct place.
When submitting my app the review had problems with my *.desktop file. So
after correcting them I figured I could resubmit the app of the same version.
I clicked the resubmit button like a dummi
Hy,
Before switching to ubuntu 13.10 I get up to 1 new version by day, since
... nothing
I don't have new release of scripts or they are no new release?
For base system I need to add 70-crespo.rules, this is by launchpad again?
Regards,
Francois.
--
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubun
On 10/25/2013 07:20 AM, Michael Zanetti wrote:
> On Friday 25 October 2013 08:13:20 Marc Deslauriers wrote:
>> On 13-10-25 06:43 AM, Michael Zanetti wrote:
>>
>>
In short, your use case falls into the category of 'backup software' and
backup software is not supported by the appstore at t
On 10/25/2013 07:13 AM, Marc Deslauriers wrote:
> On 13-10-25 06:43 AM, Michael Zanetti wrote:
>
>>> In short, your use case falls into the category of 'backup software' and
>>> backup software is not supported by the appstore at this time.
>>
>>
>> Just to add some more unsupported use cases:
>>
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 7:43 AM, Michael Zanetti <
michael.zane...@canonical.com> wrote:
> On Friday 25 October 2013 05:18:31 Jamie Strandboge wrote:
> > On 10/24/2013 06:26 PM, Robert Schroll wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Since my previous questions about the content hub didn't get me
> anywhe
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Martin Fasani wrote:
>
>- Browser usability is one of the most important things. At this point
>most of Javascript links are not usable. Standard anchor navigation works,
>but for some reason tapping on some links (Ex. twitter) does not work
>correc
Hello dear Ubuntu list,
*1* I wanted to ask first if anyone come up with a working alarm ?
The one that is in this release doesn't let me save. Tried to search for an
alarm app and didn't found any.
*2* Is there any way to do an ssh tunnel or something alike to get internet
on the phone through
On 13-10-25 08:20 AM, Michael Zanetti wrote:
> On Friday 25 October 2013 08:13:20 Marc Deslauriers wrote:
>> On 13-10-25 06:43 AM, Michael Zanetti wrote:
>>
>>
In short, your use case falls into the category of 'backup software' and
backup software is not supported by the appstore at thi
On Friday 25 October 2013 08:13:20 Marc Deslauriers wrote:
> On 13-10-25 06:43 AM, Michael Zanetti wrote:
>
>
> >> In short, your use case falls into the category of 'backup software' and
> >> backup software is not supported by the appstore at this time.
> >
> > Just to add some more unsupporte
On 13-10-25 06:43 AM, Michael Zanetti wrote:
>> In short, your use case falls into the category of 'backup software' and
>> backup software is not supported by the appstore at this time.
>
>
> Just to add some more unsupported use cases:
>
> * A Music downloader
That's supported with the "musi
On Friday 25 October 2013 05:18:31 Jamie Strandboge wrote:
> On 10/24/2013 06:26 PM, Robert Schroll wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Since my previous questions about the content hub didn't get me anywhere,
> > I must have been asking stupid questions. Allow me to back up to a more
> > basic topic.
> I
On 10/24/2013 06:26 PM, Robert Schroll wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Since my previous questions about the content hub didn't get me anywhere, I
> must
> have been asking stupid questions. Allow me to back up to a more basic topic.
I doubt that was the case-- probably simply that people got quite busy w
On Friday 25 October 2013 09:56:03 Thomas Voß wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Michael Zanetti
>
> wrote:
> > On Thursday 24 October 2013 15:36:11 Rick Spencer wrote:
> >> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Jamie Strandboge
> >
> > wrote:
> >> > On 10/24/2013 02:00 PM, Rick Spencer wrote:
On 10/24/2013 10:36 PM, Rick Spencer wrote:
> So I am saying the opposite. Rather than allowing apps to create
> background services I think we should stick to the original vision. Apps
> use well known APIs for their functionality, or the the user keeps the
> app in front and alive on the phone. I
On Friday 25 October 2013 09:35:26 Michael Zanetti wrote:
> On Thursday 24 October 2013 15:36:11 Rick Spencer wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Jamie Strandboge
>
> wrote:
> > > On 10/24/2013 02:00 PM, Rick Spencer wrote:
> > > > It's been interesting to read all the expected use cases,
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Michael Zanetti
wrote:
> On Thursday 24 October 2013 15:36:11 Rick Spencer wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Jamie Strandboge
> wrote:
>> > On 10/24/2013 02:00 PM, Rick Spencer wrote:
>> > > It's been interesting to read all the expected use cases, and als
On Thursday 24 October 2013 15:36:11 Rick Spencer wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Jamie Strandboge
wrote:
> > On 10/24/2013 02:00 PM, Rick Spencer wrote:
> > > It's been interesting to read all the expected use cases, and also the
> > > requirements for application developers. It's good
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Ted Gould wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-10-23 at 11:09 +0200, Thomas Voß wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 8:45 PM, Rasmus Eneman wrote:
>>>my point of view is still that forcing every little small app to bring its
>>> own
>>>daemon will:
>>>
>>>a) scare off people for w
29 matches
Mail list logo
